Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, DoJ Reach Tentative Settlement
JeffMagnus writes: "MSNBC is reporting that the tentative settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ calls for a five-year consent decree between the government and Microsoft governing the company's conduct. A three person panel of independent experts will be created to review the companys' future activity." The New York Times appears to be the original source for the settlement stories; there's also an AP article.
For instance, Microsoft didn't have a monopoly with Exchange, IE, NT or Office 5 years ago. But it did have a lock on the home user market. all of sudden, new applications appear in Windows, integration only really works when you use windows, so before you know it, all of these markets fall apart and become absorbed in the Microsoft monolith. If they had been an Internet -applications company, a business-productivity applications company and an OS company, I doubt that Microsoft would be the single ruler of all of those markets.
As long as computer manufacturers can't ship a dual boot system with Windows on it (with no "price incentive" to ship single boot), the DOJ has failed.
"Microsoft officials also have warned they wouldn't accept any broad prohibitions against bundling new features into Windows."
Since when does the party found guilty in a criminal case get to set terms on the sentence? This is crap!
"Banning restrictive contracts that would force computer makers to buy versions of Windows with new features, but allowing financial incentives such as discounts to make those versions more enticing."
Again, this is crap! Like every other product on the planet, more features should cost more or the same and the only discounts should be based on quantity.
I think that might be the EXACT problem. BUSINESS. Not GOVERNMENT. The Nation is *NOT* a corporation, don't treat it like one!
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
>the defendant has been found guilty of criminal
>actions, and put on some kind of probation, but
>if he/she violates that probation, the probation
>will continue longer.
Hmm... I don't know about you but... where I come from - if you violate probation... they put yer ^&(^*! in jail.
So, if Microsoft violates probation then they should be stiffly fined and or have their requirements expanded in scope.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
First, read this.
Now, imagine if the hard drive maker, or the memory maker, or the video card maker (etc., you get the point) tried to do the same thing? Compaq would have dumped them in a second and gone to a competitor.
Now, listen carefully:
THEY CAN'T DO THAT WITH WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE!!! If they dumped Windows and went to Red Hat instead, they would GO OUT OF BUSINESS! And they know it all too well.
This is precisely what is a legal definition of a monopoly (as opposed to an absolute monopoly. Many people say Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly because you can buy a copy of Red Hat and install it. These people are confusing a legally defined monopoly with an absolute monopoly like what AT&T had.)
It's technically legal for Microsoft to have this monopoly, but it's illegal to abuse it by forcing other products down computer manufacturers throats (First Explorer, Office, MSN, now Windows Media Player, Windows Messaging, etc.) or to tell them they can't sell computers with 2 operating systems or with no OS or any of the other dozens of things that Microsoft does that they couldn't do if there were any REAL competition in the desktop OS market.
Some folks say that Linux is now to Microsoft what AMD is to Intel. This is simply not accurate for one simple reason: AMD processors run ALL the same software that Intel processors do. If you have an Intel processor, you can simply replace it with an AMD one (yes sometimes you need to replace the motherboard and perhaps the memory) without changing ANY of the software on your computer.
Linux DOES NOT run the same software as Windows. Why is this? Well, Microsoft's license agreements say that you agree to not reverse-engineer their software. If you don't agree to the license, you can't use it (legally). Hmm, let's see, it's legal to reverse-engineer Intel processors, but not Microsoft operating systems. How nice for Microsoft.
To all you Microsoft apologists out there: Do you REALLY want Microsoft in control of EVERYTHING to do with computing? Because, without the anti-trust case, that's exactly where we'd be heading. Without this "government interference", every computing experience would be handled by Microsoft. We'd all use Windows, Explorer, Office, MSN, Media Player, Windows Messaging, Passport, etc. and then Microsoft could charge whatever they want for all this. Not true, you say? You don't think that Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE? You think any web pages created with Microsoft Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
Also, without "interference", NONE of the major companies currently supporting Linux to varying degrees (IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell, etc., etc.,) would have had anything to do with Linux. The repurcussions from Microsoft would have been much too severe.
Not to mention all the security problems that would arise out of all of this. Melissa/Love Bug/Sircam/Code Red anyone?
(In response to mrbkap.)
.Net. Since MS couldn't lure people to their Java-alike called C#, they are now trying for another Java-alike called J#. But that isn't likely to work since people remember what a joke Visual J++ was. If Microsoft can't keep Windows developers, or get .Net developers, it is going to be in trouble.
;)
Microsoft would like the world to believe that the fate of the economy rests on its shoulders. If that were true, MS would not be looking for new and exciting ways to milk money from people (auditing impoverished schools and children's charities, forcing people to pay to keep their software running, etc.) just to keep the company fed. Back in March and April of this year, upgrades of Windows 98 were outselling Windows ME, and Apple's OS X was outselling Windows 2000 upgrades. With all the reasons to hate or fear Windows XP, and all the anger MS's latest license policies are rousing, Microsoft is going to have a tough time selling Windows XP. Add to that the low PC sales (= OS sales) and MS so conveniently trying to overextend itself going for new markets (web services and game consoles), and you get a Microsoft that is weaker than it has been in years. It is ripe for its competition to unseat it, and removing its stranglehold on the market would free up a lot of room for real innovation that would actually spark growth. Microsoft is an ugly, smelly, half rotten weed. It is making the computer industry very sick.
Yes, Apple does make things user friendly (as opposed to MS merely making them user annoying). They have taken that talent, and applied it to an operating system based on an open source version of BSD Unix (plus the Mach kernal and a proprietary user interface). The result is the powerful, but easy to use, OS X. Finally we have a Unix that is as easy to use as Mac has always been, that runs Quicken and the Sims, is as powerful as Unix, and has a Terminal application that the brave can use to access a real Unix shell prompt. The result: Mac users who have never seen a command line before are eagerly rushing to acquire "mastery of the Terminal app", and are posting tips about their favorite cryptic command line like game cheats or easter eggs! OS X is quite capable of filling in Linux's weaknesses on the desktop. OS X makes the Mac a very credible threat to Windows, especially since Apple is the strongest of the desktop computer makers at the moment. Microsoft does not realize the danger here (Shhh, don't tell them).
Linux is nothing to be sneezed at either. It is doing very well against Microsoft on the server side. It is not out of the running on the desktop side either. Linux is a good choice for the enterprise desktop, in cases where commercial apps aren't needed, and MIS has competent people to administer the users' machines. Linux is also good for embedded systems.
Java is supposed to overtake Visual Basic and Visual C++ next year. The success of an OS depends on its developers. If the developers are moving to system independent Java, that weakens Windows and threatens
The alternatives are here now, and ready to roll. Microsoft is either going to have to learn how to compete, or they are going down the tubes, and dragging with them any PC maker stupid enough to not find themselves a better OS. Somehow, I don't see MS learning how to make bug free programs that do what the customer wants any time soon. If I were IBM, I'd start making the rounds of the software companies and get them to start turning out Linux applications.
As for the antitrust trial, this is getting ridiculous. Microsoft has been found guilty of doing nasty, illegal things with their monopoly. Shame. Shame. To even consider "settlement" talks during the penalty stage of a trial is bad enough. Agreeing on the exact same thing that MS violated years ago is idiotic! MS already thinks it is above the law. Letting MS off is going to make it think it is the second coming.
Time to appeal to a higher court: the consumer. Punish Microsoft for their wicked ways by taking your business elsewhere!
Homage to Godzilla, King of Monsters, on the occasion of his 47th birthday this Saturday.
Coincidentally, this was announced three years to the day after the leaking of Microsoft's plans to "de-commoditize" the open protocols that make up the internet. Fate must be winking at Bill.
From the NYT article:
"Under the settlement proposal, Microsoft would be required to make that information available in a "secure facility," where representatives of software makers, computer manufacturers and others deemed qualified could study the Windows programming code and ask questions."
"Carrying out the technology-sharing provision remains one of the sticking points in the settlement talks. The government wants to make sure it is effective, while Microsoft wants to make sure it can protect its intellectual property."
This sounds a little dodgy in terms of open source programmers being allowed a peek for compatibility purposes. And if the code they write then reveals a Microsoft "secret" what happens?
They've hired a power lawyer to get more for all their trouble. We can expect them to contest this settlement, in it's current form, I think.
It ain't over 'til it's over.
You don't have to be smart to get a degree from Harvard or Princeton or Yale. If you are rich that will suffice. Lots of actors and actresses have degrees from Yale, Harvard, princeton etc. All it takes is money.
War is necrophilia.
Well I for one did see your comment ;) "The law doesn't mean shit." Taken with your other remarks, I would say this is an interesting perspective. Of course you are right in a cynical sense...
It is the people who apply the law, the people who write the law, the people who vote for the people who write the law that "mean shit". I guess I am an optimist, I think that even if the states agree to this the Judge will throw it out.
I mean she is not bought and paid for and it is clear that this preliminary remedy does not address the infringing issues. After all another federal court judge from her circuit found Microsoft guilty.
I too am a libertarian, but I advocate a limited penalty not one where the government is actively monitoring the company with a panel of some sort. This is just ripe for endless headaches.
The solution is very simple.
Enforce open publication of file-formats as a requirement of their use in government.
Thus if microsoft wants to maintain government contracts must publish format specs.
This will prevent most of their attempts to stifle competition in office apps and actually encourage the economy.
I don't care what other people do so long as I am free to use what I want and they can use whatever they want.
'Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson...'
> Watch concerns over "the economy" and vague "terrorist" tie-ins put the brakes on the states actions.
Too late:Once more, the "national tragedy" is invoked as an excuse to give the powerful what they want.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One might have made similar observations about the President and principals of MCI in 1981 when the feds were trying to find AT&T a monopoly. Linux is as small a niche as MacOS and Solaris and not really relevant to Microsoft's business practices. Maybe in 5-10 years... Maybe if microsoftophiles catch on to the downside of XP... Even then, most companies and consumers have too much invested in Windows (or even DOS) products to make it attractive or easy to switch to a new OS, and that's part of the point: it's only competition if it's the product(s) itself, not a heroin-like addiction to proprietary file formats and legacy software (or strong-arm business practices that make it difficult to find one vendor selling both linux and windows PCs, is what determines your purchasing choice.
The most significant element in the settlement proposal, industry executives said, is the requirement that Microsoft share the technical information needed for other software or hardware products to work smoothly with Windows.
Think a little about this one. We all know that protocols, api libraries, and other interoperable standards are the real battle here. Go back and read the halloween documents if you've forgotton..
If this penalty was enforced properly (along with the additional requirement that MS comply with all protocols and standards and do not attempt to create their own incompatible ones), Microsoft would rapidly lose any advantages due to gaming incompatibility (DirectX), web standards, the .Net fiasco, Wine incompatibilities etc. etc.
Very soon, people would be free to choose Linux and other operating systems *knowing* that they *will* be able to run all their old applications, they *will* be able to browse and interact with the web without problems, they *will* be able to buy the latest games without having to keep a Win9x partition on their PCs.
This is the real battle. It only remains to be seen whether this proposed penalty is actually implemented. If it is not, any other likely action is unlikely to have any real effect.
The OEM licensing is the key - Look at OSX - thats a really, really great OS. If a large computer pumped the same amount of money and work into a Linux shell as Apple did into OSX, you could easily have an open-source OS thats capable of competing with windows, both in features and ease of use. But you'd never get it out there because OEMs don't want to lose thier windows license - it'd take a company the size of Dell to take a HUGE leap and be willing to lose thier MS contract in order to support this new OS. I don't see that happening, especially not in the current climate. But THAT is what will break the MS monopoly. Well, that and open Office file formats.
>Not true, you say? You don't think that
.NET developement circles. NS 4.7 locks up for me from the start, and most pages on the site give NS 4.7 no more than black displays.
.NET code in Moz/NS/OmniWeb when you're only going to net 10% or less more customers. You're going to make a new system in .NET instead.
>Microsoft would "encourage" ISP's to only support IE?
Okay, that's going to be a tough one. Even if MS beats out TCP/IP (and I just don't see that happening), they've still got AOL to fight with.
On the other hand...
>You think any web pages created with Microsoft
>Front Page would be readable in Netscape?
That's already happened. Try looking at a site that uses ASP.NET like:
http://www.dotnetjunkies.com/
... in NS 4.7. These people have appeared on MS Developer's Network and are power players in
That's not a big deal to me by itself, but these [and those this site represents -- I feel this one is representative] are the guys MS wants _teaching_ newbies how to program. The less professional sites (including some of the more deeply hidden pages on dotnetjunkies) don't even render in Mozilla well. People don't test cross platform and cross browser because they're not taught to.
The problem occurs when programmers test only in IE because they know more than 90% of their clients/customers will have access to IE.* It's simply not worth the work bothering to test new
The extension of the MS monopoly to the server-side is on the way -- not because programmers are given tools that, by definition, lock out non-MS or non-IE tools, but because it's so much easier to ignore non-MS tools and assume your clients have IE anyhow. MS even provides built-in "separate but [hardly] equal" controls that mimic on Moz what they do quite handily on IE. "Our site even works on Mozilla -- we know because MS tells us so."
MS can support standards and, as long as it's still easier to do it on Windows first, lazy programmers are still going to do Windows only.
* Think how many people have one form of IE or another -- Mac IE is a very nice browser that comes pre-installed with an icon on Mac OS X's Dock. Think of IE Mac as "mini-Windows" -- and therefore another brick in the foundation for server-side, possibly antitrust-like practices.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Microsoft's monopolistic market power is based on its leverage of the Windows/Office platform and revenue streams. Therefore, the best resolution to the antitrust case is one which increases competition by reducing the ability of Microsoft to leverage the platform and revenue or otherwise invade the privacy of the customer as a result of the foregoing.
.Net framework including any modifications thereof or successors thereto. This will permit two things: a.) relatively rapid porting of the framework to alternative operating systems while eliminating potential inconsistencies due to multiple framework development efforts (i.e. freeing resources devoted to the redundant Mono framework) and b.) platform independent applications (i.e. applications written exclusively to the .Net platform should be capable of running on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc. a la Java). Microsoft would be bound by decree to certain source and object code publishing and documentation requirements a la Sun's voluntary efforts related to OpenOffice.org.
.NET services evolves into); b.) any network authentication source; c.) any advertising or sponsorship links. Related to this, Microsoft must not require the use of any network based service to use its desktop applications (i.e. why is Passport required to open my Money 2002 file?). Microsoft must further x.) permit third parties to utilize an API facilitating equivalent functionality for authentication and provision of services to the Windows platform/Microsoft desktop application as that used by Microsoft for .NET services; y.) give users the ability to chose any third party provider; and z.) simplify that choice by listing alternative providers with 2% or more of the market for any given class of network service where this list is sorted by market share.
.NET framework program. With respect to third party copyrights, Microsoft must use its best efforts to obtain a BSD license for such copyright so as to permit full disclosure and incorporation of that code in third party operating systems.
Here is my proposed consent decree:
1.).Net Framework: Microsoft must open source (BSD license) the
2.)Incorporation of Nonessential Functionality in Products: Microsoft must offer a simple means of avoiding the installation of or removing the following functionality post-installation: a.) all applications or network-based services not integral to the proper operation and maintenance of the Windows operating system (i.e. explorer, movie maker, photo editor, imaging software, media player, messenger, games, MSN Explorer plus whatever
3.)Privacy Management: Microsoft must not distribute any information it gathers about its customers/users to any third party without the explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent of that user. Microsoft must provide a simple, secure method for any customer/user to view all information that Microsoft has gathered with respect to that user and permit the customer/user to delete any or all of such information. Microsoft must use its "best efforts" to secure such information from accidental divulgence to third parties. Absent explicit, opt-in, time-limited consent, Microsoft must demonstrate that it does not utilize internally or distribute certain user information including contacts, calendar, and financial information except as absolutely essential to the provision of that service.
4.)Pricing/Marketing Restrictions: Microsoft must offer standardized, openly published pricing to any customer for a given volume of products. Microsoft must not enter into any agreement which would have the contractual or de facto result of exclusivity for Microsoft.
5.)Compatibility with Other Office Programs: Microsoft must offer the OpenOffice XML file filters for the following Microsoft Office versions: 97, 2000 and XP via a download from its Office support website and must bundle these filters as one of the default supported file formats in any future Office version or any service pack for an existing Office version. Further, Microsoft must publish the file formats for the following desktop applications: Office including FrontPage and Publisher, Visio, Project, and Money including the current version, two past generations, and all future versions (three months prior to commercial release of a product utilizing the new format). The DOJ would reserve the right to add to this list of products.
6.)Open Source Device Drivers: Except to the extent that such incorporates third party copyrights, Microsoft must release the technical specifications and open-source (BSD license) its source code, to every extent possible, for all devices and peripherals supported by the current version of Windows (i.e. scanners, printers, sound cards, video cards, hard drives, USB devices, controller cards and chips). Program management for this effort will be similar to the open source
Some random financial facts about Microsoft, compared against the biggest company in the world (by revenue) Exxon Mobil. Scary Stuff:
Basically, even though Microsoft has approx 1/10th the revenues of each of the top 3 corporations in the world (the others are Wal-Mart and GM) it has approx half the profits they do.
In June 2000 Microsoft's pre tax profit margin was 60.2%. After taxes it was 41.0%. Seeing as Bill Gates owns 13.3% of Microsoft, every dollar spent on a Microsoft Product -- actually let's make it every $100 because $1 won't buy anything MS sells. For every $100 you spend on a MS product, Bill Gates gets on average $5.33.
There are sites that try to try to put is wealth in perspective. This is the google cached version (don't wanna melt the poor guy's server) but it's pretty much up to date.
Comment removed based on user account deletion